Pope John Paul II's "Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit"?: Are the Francis Seamless Garment US Bishops giving "'Cover' for... Legalized Abortion" & the "Unrepentant State of Mortal Sin" as well as Practical Atheism?

 

"Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a 'right' to persist in evil-in any sin at all-and who thus rejects Redemption. One closes oneself up in sin, thus making impossible one's conversion, and consequently the remission of sins, which one considers not essential or not important for one's life. This is a state of spiritual ruin, because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not allow one to escape from one's self-imposed imprisonment and open oneself to the divine sources of the purification of consciences and of the remission of sins." - Pope John Paul II in DOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM On the Holy Spirit in the Life of the Church
and the World

It appears that many pro-life Catholics who are defending this teaching [the "death penalty is inadmissible"] by irrationally saying it doesn't contradict irreformable dogma or that it is prudential or it is ambiguous don't realize that they are defending the seamless garment and legalized abortion.

In 2018, Francis's Secretary of State Pietro Parolin a few days before Francis announced his new teaching let the cat out of the bag. Parolin profusely praised the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin signaling more upcoming support of his centerpiece teaching: the seamless garment.

The seamless garment teaches that there is moral equivalence between prudential social issues "where there can be legitimate diversity of opinion" as Ratzinger taught and abortion which is a grave sin where there can't be diversity of opinion...

...The apparent pro-homosexual Scalia dishonestly said that we are all “intrinsically disordered” thereby using the seamless garment trick of making homosexuality equivalent to heterosexuality (as some say immigration is equivalent to murdering unborn babies) by purposely mixing up “intrinsically disordered” with original sin which everyone has.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in a 1986 letter on "Homosexual Persons" said "the inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a... intrinsic moral evil; and... must be seen as an objective disorder." If we are to take Scalia at her word then heterosexuality is a "intrinsic moral evil"...

... Finally, are the Francis US bishops promoting a seamless garment practical atheism? - The Catholic Monitor

Before we get into the USCCB meeting, let's rehash Pope John Paul II's seeming rebuke of Francis's Amoris Laetitia and as the post will show the possible rebuke of the United States bishops meeting:

Francis's Amoris Laetitia theology of conscience as the supreme tribunal can, to some extent, be summed up as promoting "the person who claims to have a 'right' to persist in evil-in any sin at all-and who thus rejects Redemption... as it were an impenetrability of conscience."

Many who follow Amoris Laetitia may apparently be rejecting Redemption.

Catholics who are open to the redefinition of “mercy” to mean the conscience is the supreme tribunal may cease to be Christians because they deny that the Incarnate God-man Jesus Christ died to save us from our sin. The conscience as supreme tribunal denies mercy because if there is no objective sin to be forgiven and one doesn’t have by grace the power to overcome sin then the cross of Christ is emptied of its power.

Pope John Paul II in DOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM On the Holy Spirit in the Life of the Church
and the World said:

"Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a 'right' to persist in evil-in any sin at all-and who thus rejects Redemption. One closes oneself up in sin, thus making impossible one's conversion, and consequently the remission of sins, which one considers not essential or not important for one's life. This is a state of spiritual ruin, because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not allow one to escape from one's self-imposed imprisonment and open oneself to the divine sources of the purification of consciences and of the remission of sins."

"The action of the Spirit of truth, which works toward salvific 'convincing concerning sin,' encounters in a person in this condition an interior resistance, as it were an impenetrability of conscience... Pope Pius XII had already declared that 'the sin of the century is the loss of the sense of sin,'¹⁸⁶ and this loss goes hand in hand with the 'loss of the sense of God.' In the Exhortation just mentioned we read: 'In fact, God is the origin and the supreme end of man, and man carries in himself a divine seed. Hence it is the reality of God that reveals and illustrates the mystery of man. It is therefore vain to hope that there will take root a sense of sin against man and against human values, if there is no sense of offense against God, namely the true sense of sin.'"
[http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_18051986_dominum-et-vivificantem.html]

Francis's apparent "loss of the sense of sin" and the "sense of offense against God" seems to point towards a type of practical atheism on his part. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2018/06/is-pope-francis-practical-atheist-who.html]

Now to the bishop get-together, the Les Femmes website summarized the latest "seamless garment" United States bishops meeting as "a[n] [apparent] big nothing burger":

The document on the Eucharist, The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Life of the Church, which was made so much of at the last meeting, appears to be a big nothing burger illustrated by the vote: 222 for, 8 against, and three abstentions. You can bet that it's a watered down expression in order not to offend anyone and to please as many as possible, or at least not displease them by sharing the hard truth!

So why bother? We already have many eloquent documents on the Eucharist more worth reading than anything coming out of the USCCB. And who will read their dozens of pages of blather anyway?

Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, TX, a vigorous defender of life, stepped to the microphone several times urging his brother bishops to include language explicitly mentioning denial of Communion to pro-abortion politicians. His brother bishops were unmoved and did not support him. They approved an amendment linking the murder of babies with a host of "seamless garment" social issues. [https://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2021/11/one-more-do-nothing-bishops-meeting.html]

Is the latest US bishops "seamless garment" teaching another rehash of the 2018 Francis "death penalty is inadmissible" novelty which apparently is a heresy?

Webster accurately says heresy is defined as:

"Denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church."

Webster's number one synonym for the word "denial" is "contradiction."

Webster's definition of "inadmissible" is:

"Not capable of being allowed or conceded."

Stated unambiguously Francis is saying, the "death penalty is inadmissible or not allowed" which contradicts scripture as well as the "infallible and irreformable doctrine of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church."
(Edwardfeser.blogspot.com, "Pope Francis and capital punishment," August 3, 2018)

According to ethics Professor Joseph Bessette, Francis is contradicting the two immediate previous popes before him:

"In 2004,...then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - the pope's own chief doctrinal officer, later to become Pope Benedict XVI - stated unambiguously that:"

"There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about... applying the death penalty." (Catholic World Report, "Why the Church cannot Reverse Past Teaching on Capital Punishment," June, 7 2017)

One of the greatest Thomist philosophers alive today, Professor Edward Feser shows that all the talking Catholic head "experts" who say this teaching is ambiguous, prudential and doesn't contradict scriptures and the 2,000 year old doctrine are wrong. Unless, they can come up with something different than what they are saying on the Catholic News Agency over the last few days.

I have a number of his books that have clarity yet amazing depth and have seen him on YouTube make a very intelligent atheist philosophers look amateurish.

In a back and forth in the internet with one of Francis's top theological defenders of capital punishment Professor Robert Fastiggi, he made the professor look unreasonable and ridiculous.

Personally, I can't wait for anyone of the Francis US bishops defenders to debate him. It'll be hilarious to see him spank them intellectually.

Anyway, Feser on the new teaching says:

"Pope Francis, by contrast, wants the Catechism to teach that capital punishment ought never to be used... he justifies this change not on prudential grounds, but 'so as to better reflect the development of doctrine.'"

"... Nor does the letter from the CDF [Francis's Vatican doctrine office] explain how the new teaching can be consistent with the teaching of scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and previous popes. Merely asserting the new language "develops" rather than "contradicts" past teachings does not make it so. The CDF is not Orwell's Ministry of Truth, and a pope is not Humpty Dumpty, able by fiat to make words mean whatever he wants them to. Slapping the label "development" onto a contradiction doesn't transform it into a non-contradiction."
(First Things, "Pope Francis and Capital Punishment," August, 3 2018)

It appears that many pro-life Catholics who are defending this teaching by irrationally saying it doesn't contradict irreformable dogma or that it is prudential or it is ambiguous don't realize that they are defending the seamless garment and legalized abortion.

In 2018, Francis's Secretary of State Pietro Parolin a few days before Francis announced his new teaching let the cat out of the bag. Parolin profusely praised the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin signaling more upcoming support of his centerpiece teaching: the seamless garment.

The seamless garment teaches that there is moral equivalence between prudential social issues "where there can be legitimate diversity of opinion" as Ratzinger taught and abortion which is a grave sin where there can't be diversity of opinion.

One example of this teaching would be teaching that the murder of the unborn babies and the push for unrestricted mass immigration which Francis recently taught in his Gaudete et Exsultate are morally equivalent.

It is probable that Francis knows the vast majority of the new immigrants vote for the abortion party, the Democrats which leads to more legalized abortion.

Another example of the seamless garment would be to make murder of the unborn babies equivalent to not voting for the death penalty heresy of making capital punishment inadmissible or not allowed.

As Research Director for the Acton Institute Dr. Samuel Gregg put it:

"The 'seamless garment'... provide[d] 'cover' for Catholic politicians who supported legalized abortion."
(Catholic World Report, "The Consistent - and not so Seamless - Ethic of Life," August 13, 2015)

Feser and Bessette in their book "By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed" show that the evidence shows that the best way to get more abortions is to support ending the death penalty:

"[S]ome... claim... abolition of capital punishment will contribute to 'building a culture of life'... As far as we can see, there is no evidence whatsoever for this claim, and compelling evidence against it. Abortion and euthanasia were much rarer in Western societies when capital punishment was more common, and they have become more common in Western society precisely as support for capital punishment has diminished."

"... Meanwhile, those who are most strongly opposed to capital punishment tend also to be strongly opposed to traditional morality and traditional religious belief. Precisely because of this opposition, though, opponents of capital punishment will also tend (again, not always, but in general) to support abortion and euthanasia. So, the suggestion that opposition to capital punishment is a natural part of 'building a culture of life' appears to be neither true to the sociological facts, nor at all plausible in light of the radical incompatible philosophical, moral, or religious premises that underlie most opposition to abortion and euthanasia, on the one hand, and most opposition to capital punishment on the other." (Pages 201 - 202)

In 2018,  LifeSiteNews was pushing the idea that lay panels should police the sex abuse of the pro-homosexual bishops network.

The problem is that Lifesitenews is not calling for legal prosecution of the pro-gay bishops network and promoting the lay panels by featuring the pro-homosexual editor of Aleteia Elizabeth Scalia who seems to thinks Catholics in an unrepentant state of mortal sin can receive Communion.

Do they realize that they are implicitly promoting the idea that McCarrick's pro-gay bishops network be policed by pro-gay lay panels made up of people like Scalia by promoting her?:

“Yes, there should be a panel– there should be panels in every diocese and every deanery, ready to look into serious allegations made against any representative of the Church,” said Elizabeth Scalia writing at her The Anchoress Blog.  “But with all due respect, sir, no, there ought not be a bishop residing on a single one of them.”

“There is an old Roman saying, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guards?)  In a sense that needs to be asked, now,” continued Scalia.  “The suggestion that the laity and the priests who trusted the bishops to do the right thing before — and have been amply burned for it — should just trust the bishops to do the right thing again would be farcical if it were not so insulting."[https://www.lifesitenews.com//news/bishop-tells-cardinal-wuerl-bishops-alone-investigating-bishops-is-not-the]”

She is right in saying it would be wrong to "trust the bishops to do the right thing," but it would, also, be wrong to trust pro-gay lay panels to police what is a homosexual bishop sex abuse scandal.

The apparent pro-homosexual Scalia dishonestly said that we are all “intrinsically disordered” thereby using the seamless garment trick of making homosexuality equivalent to heterosexuality (as some say immigration is equivalent to murdering unborn babies) by purposely mixing up “intrinsically disordered” with original sin which everyone has.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in a 1986 letter on "Homosexual Persons" said "the inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a... intrinsic moral evil; and... must be seen as an objective disorder." If we are to take Scalia at her word then heterosexuality is a "intrinsic moral evil":

"We are told that the phrase “intrinsically disordered” is hurtful or hateful [to gays], and yet I find the words ironically healing; they give me precisely the hook into that transcendent understanding (and into notions of original sin and even idolatry) that I have been missing. Far from taking any offense at the idea that I am “intrinsically disordered,” I am actually consoled." [https://letterstochristopher.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/elizabeth-scalia-and-intrinsic-disorder/]

The Lepanto Institute showed that Scalia thinks that persons in an "unrepentant state of mortal sin" can receive Communion which apparently could include sexually active homosexuals:

"In making her argument for presenting Holy Communion to Catholics in an unrepentant state of mortal sin, Ms. Scalia begins with the following argument:"

'Jesus, of course, cannot be defiled; nothing we do can defile Jesus, and he, naturally, can never ever be a source of defilement. Our hearts and minds—what we entertain within them and emit from them—are what pollute our souls.'

"In this first point, Ms. Scalia is suggesting that Jesus is not defiled by those receiving Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin. This is exactly what St. Thomas Aquinas identified as objection 1 to the question." [Whether the sinner sins in receiving Christ’s body sacramentally?” [http://www.lepantoinstitute.org/faith-and-life/elizabeth-scalia-vs-st-thomas-aquinas/]

Austin Ruse put it best on Scalia's support of homosexuality:

"Do you -Elizabeth[Scalia]... agree with [Fr. James] Martin that the Church teachings on homosexuality should be changed?... Do you welcome gays kissing during Holy Mass? Of course, you will not answer and will continue to insist it is only hatred and homophobia that inspires his critics."
(Crisis, "James Martin SJ Thinks you're a Nazi," September 29, 2017)

Scalia is the editor of the media website Aleteia which is one of the largest Catholic websites in the country and Martin is the editor of the Catholic magazine America.

In the early part of this century, the gay mafia took over the U.S. media. They appear to have taken over all liberal and many conservative U.S. Bishops and appear to be taking over the Catholic media.

On March 31, 2017, Lifesitenew in a article called "Numerous 'gay' affirming parishes unopposed by bishops in major U.S. dioceses," it was confirmed that the gay mafia is taking over many, maybe most dioceses.

The report showed that many American bishops were allowing parishes to have homosexual groups that opposed defined Church teaching.

The article said that leftist bishops and conservative bishops ranging from "McElroy of San Diego and Chaput of Philidelphia have expressed concern about the use of 'intrinsically disordered" which is the defined Church teaching of homosexuality.

Both bishops and Scalia are also defending gay activist Fr. James Martin who on YouTube taught that chastity is not required of homosexuals:

"For a teaching to be really authoritative," he said, "it is expected that it will be received by the people of God... The teaching that LGBT people must be celibate their entire lives," he continued "has not been received."
(Church Militant, "Father Martin: Homosexuals not Bound to Chastity," September 20, 2017)

Chaput, McElroy as well as many other bishops and Scalia in Catholic media are helping Martin build a bridge to hell by abetting his efforts to help these persons including those in the pro-gay bishops network to live in unconfessed moral sin.

These U.S. Bishops, editor Martin and editor Scalia are joining the media in a project that began early this century.

Is LifeSiteNews going to join Scalia's Aleteia in the "homosexualization" of the Catholic media by promoting her?

The apparent pro-homosexual Scalia dishonestly said that we are all “intrinsically disordered” thereby using the seamless garment trick of making homosexuality equivalent to heterosexuality (as some say immigration is equivalent to murdering unborn babies) by purposely mixing up “intrinsically disordered” with original sin which everyone has.

Finally, are the Francis US bishops promoting a seamless garment practical atheism?

The Catholic News Agency headline on December 7, 2013 reported Francis's supposed ironic focus at the time:

"Pope: Neglect of human dignity causes 'practical atheism'"

Pope John Paul II in a General Audience on April 1999 said:

"The contemporary era has devastating forms of 'theoretical' and 'practical' atheism. Secularism... with its indifference to ultimate questions and... the transcendent." (Vatican.va>hf_jp_ii_ 14041999)

Francis's primary focus on only earthly human dignity, it appears, could be a form of practical atheism or secularism.

Francis rarely focuses on "ultimate questions and... the transcendent" such as heaven and hell as well as the Last Judgement, but almost always on non-ultimate/transcendent issues that tend to bring leftist pro-abortion politicians into power such as radical environmental issues, leftist economic policies and unlimited immigration.

This form of practical atheism has brought about the Francis's seamless garment teachings which we will see appears to be a form of Kantian practical atheism.

The abortion holocaust in Ireland can, to some extent, be blamed on the Irish bishops following Francis's seamless garment "pro-life" teachings that equates killing innocent human life with pro-abortion politician issues such as the death penalty, leftist economic policies and radical ecology policies.

Even after the abortion referendum was overwhelming lost, to some extent, due to the seamless garment focus as well as inaction by Francis and the Irish bishops, Dublin Bishop Diarmuil Martin had the gall to call for more seamless garment Kantian practical atheism. Martin said:

"Pro-life means being alongside... economic deprivation, homelessness and marginalization." (Crux, "After abortion loss, Irish prelates look to pope's vision of 'pro-life," May 27, 2017)

The seamless garment teachings of Francis and the Irish bishops, to some extent, can be blamed for the coming death of thousands even millions of babies

This teachings come about because of their apparent conscious or unconscious Kantian practical atheism which is this world materialistic and tends to exclude the eternal.

The practical atheist Immanuel Kant while not explicitly denying the existence of God said:

"God is not a being outside me but merely a thought within me." (Fr. Stanley Jaki, Angels, Apes and Men, page 10)

Below is a summary of the type of Kantian practical atheism which appears to be part of the thinking of Francis and the Irish bishops.

In this part of the academic article "Categorical imperatives impair Christianity in culture" by scholar Douglas A. Ollivant it is explained that Kantian practical atheism infiltrated Catholicism and gives a background, to some extent, to why the protection of the unborn ended in Ireland.(July 20, 2010, Religion and Liberty, Volume 13, Number 4):

Historically, Christianity established this religious and moral framework for Western culture. Today, to the extent a larger framework is recognized at all, contemporary advocates, both Christian and secular, tend to rely on human dignity by itself to furnish this greater moral framework. But we must take care to remember that human dignity includes more than just each individual person’s dignity or rights.

Traditional Christian anthropology views human beings as participating in both the temporal and the eternal... historical Christian scholars, such as Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, have striven to understand and apply this Christian anthropology, contemporary Christian scholars seem to have moved in a different direction. In addition to our own sloth-induced forgetfulness, we have Immanuel Kant to thank for this wrong turn.

The Categorical Imperative Surfaces

In his must-read Christian Faith and Modern Democracy, Robert Kraynak introduces us to the concept of “Kantian Christianity.” [1] Kraynak claims that the “Kantian influence on modern Christianity is … deep and pervasive.” 

What he means is that Christian thinkers no longer speak about culture and politics in terms of the more enduring principles of moral virtue, law, and the common good but now focus on social justice, understood as solely the immediate, material rights and dignity of the human person. 

Moreover, they have drastically reduced the role of prudence in politics accepted under the historical Christian anthropological understanding, which has recognized a variety of political regimes depending on the circumstances. This historical understanding also acknowledged the harsh realities of the political realm in a fallen (albeit redeemed) world, and the difficulties and agonies involved in fashioning a just or moral response to contingent events. 

Instead of prudential judgments, Kraynak maintains that we now hear only moralistic pronouncements about peace and justice that severely limit the range of (legitimately recognized) political options.

Kraynak maintains that Kantian Christianity has seeped into the language of contemporary Christians even though contemporary Christians do not seem to have a full understanding of the underlying anthropology that comes with it. 

The rights and dignity of each person replaces moral and theological virtues: rational and spiritual perfection. Further, an emphasis on personal autonomy or personal identity diminishes long-established Christian teachings about the dependence of the creature on the Creator, original sin, grace, and a natural law through which human beings may share or “participate” in eternal law.

Following Kraynak, it is clear to see that in our public life and culture, this language of rights and dignity tends to lead to absolutes in morality, or “categorical imperatives.” Now, Christianity has no problem with moral absolutes (and in fact dictates several), provided they are properly stated. But a proper statement of a moral absolute is made difficult by the anthropology lingering in Kant’s legacy.

Kant’s original categorical imperative, of course, states that one must live in such a manner that one’s actions could form the basis of a universal law. It is the quest for “universal laws,” exclusive of a prudent account of circumstance, that proves troubling.

This universalist language is incompatible with the more prudential approaches to public life articulated by Augustine and Aquinas, which was driven by their much richer understandings of the human person and his or her relation to the physical world and the divine..."

The Authentic Culture of Life

But the most flagrant use of categorical imperatives in our current political culture deals with life issues. It must be stated up front that no practicing Christian disputes that life is one of the most precious gifts that God has given to us. The second century “Letter to Diognetus” bears testimony to early Christians not taking part in the Roman custom of “exposing [or “discarding”] their offspring” – the preferred method of pagan infanticide for the weak or unwanted. [3]

But to speak of a “culture of life” – if used simply to express a “seamless garment” univocal defense against any taking of life – has become a categorical imperative. For instance, the core of what we might call the “Bernadin project” is that Christians (in this case Catholics) must dogmatically oppose and fight against any early termination of human life. But this understanding fails to see that there may be an important, and even a critical, difference between a true culture of life and a “culture of merely life.” The former taking into account the authentic existence of human beings within not only the material realm, but also the immaterial, the spiritual; the latter limiting human existence to the breathing of the air in this temporal world only.

This issue cuts very close to home, as it deals with some of the most controversial politics in our culturally fragmented society: abortion, war, capital punishment, infanticide, and euthanasia. To introduce questions of prudence into these debates is often difficult, but such introductions must take place to prevent the categorical imperative from seeping further into contemporary Christian thought. On issues of great import, no matter whether these issues involve economics, politics, or human life itself, making proper distinctions is always of the essence. To choose perhaps the least charged of these issues, Christians – and particularly Roman Catholics – have been engaging in a debate over the proper limits of state-imposed punishment for some time. 

Led by the personal opposition of Pope John Paul II, the Catholic Church has grown ever more dubious of the appropriateness – and therefore the justice – of capital punishment. Many prominent Catholics in America – some out of deep conviction, others in reaction to the dissolving Democratic party monopoly on Catholic political allegiance – have sought to link opposition to the death penalty with opposition to abortion, having the effect (whether intended or not) of neutralizing any partisan distinctions on “life issues.”

But this categorical language seems to conceal more than it clarifies, for even Pope John Paul II has conceded that the death penalty is a legitimate option “when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.” Now, a categorical use of this language seems to imply that the state can only take a life when failure to do so endangers other lives. But as Cardinal Avery Dulles has pointed out to us, it may be that:

When the pope speaks of the protection of society as grounds for using the death penalty, he may have more in mind than mere physical defense against the individual criminal. To vindicate the order of justice and to sustain the moral health of society and the security of innocent persons against potential criminals it may be appropriate to punish certain crimes by death. [4]

In other words, to insist on categorical language – maintaining that the Church must insist on the continuation of physical existence regardless of the attendant circumstances – may actually be contrary to the “culture of life” that the Church seeks to promote. It is not self-evident that a “culture of life” is promoted by the continuation of human lives that have been tainted by egregious sins against human dignity. By committing the churches to this univocal definition of the culture of life, forbidding any prudential account of circumstances, the lives of the innocent become equated with the lives of the guilty. This inability to make relevant distinctions is indicative of a certain poverty in our contemporary understanding, a focus on the material that implicitly denies access to, and perhaps even the reality of, the transcendent. This univocal focus on pure physical existence does not permit us to assess, to use the Cardinal’s terms, the “moral health of society,” let alone its Christian witness or sanctity. But it does excel in permitting the generation of convenient “categorical imperatives.”

Instead of speaking dogmatically about a “right to life,” it may be that Christians could better promote human dignity by returning to more traditional language, explicitly grounded in a Christian anthropology, that allows for proper distinctions of this sort. 

To quote at length from Kraynak:

Proclaiming a right to life easily turns into the claim that biological existence is sacred or that mere life has absolute value, regardless of whether it is the life of an innocent unborn child, or the life of a heinous criminal. And the claim that life is a “right” diminishes the claim that life is a “gift” from God: How can a gift be a right? Proclaiming a right to life eventually leads to the mistaken idea of a “seamless garment of life” that is indistinguishable from complete pacifism or a total ban on taking life, including animal life, even for just and necessary causes. It also makes one forget that the good life, not to mention the afterlife, is a greater good than merely being alive in the present world – an unintended but significant depreciation of Christian otherworldliness. [5]

Christian Life in Otherworldliness, Not Categorical Imperatives

Kraynak forcefully reminds us that in the end the Christian life is about “otherworldliness.” We are merely pilgrims here in this world. A world of “categorical imperatives” seeks to bring about the kingdom of God on earth. This goal is, however laudable in intention, subject to serious abuse, as the totalitarianisms of the past century have so forcefully taught us.

Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost - Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

- Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

- "If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

- "Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

 -  LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

-  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."

- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes:  

- Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden" [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

- Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times "Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html

- Tucker Carlson's Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written" according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1

 

- A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1

 

What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: "Anitfa 'Agent Provocateurs'":
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1] 

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God's Will and to do it.

 

Pray an Our Father now for America.

 

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.